Opinion: Don’t let terrorists stomp out our free society

Friday

Jun 21, 2013 at 12:01 AMJun 21, 2013 at 9:14 PM

In the wake of the Boston Marathon attack, the Brookline Police Department again wants our Department of Homeland Security public surveillance cameras on 24 hours a day. Chief O’Leary’s proposal would abolish the compromise reached between residents and the police that has kept the cameras turned off (most days) during low-crime hours, from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.

By Kade Crockford and Frank Farlow

In the wake of the Boston Marathon attack, the Brookline Police Department again wants our Department of Homeland Security public surveillance cameras on 24 hours a day. Chief O’Leary’s proposal would abolish the compromise reached between residents and the police that has kept the cameras turned off (most days) during low-crime hours, from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.

We should not allow surveillance 24/7 in the absence of any suspicion of wrongdoing. As our nation continues to progress toward a surveillance state, we would prefer to see Brookline continue to stand as an example of “safe and free” for other Massachusetts locales.

It seems that every day we are faced with new threats to our privacy that endanger the character of our open society. A full decade after 9/11, we’re still stuck with terrible laws like the so-called USA Patriot Act, and widespread, warrantless surveillance of banking, telephone and Internet usage (as revealed in the recent expose of NSA programs).

Every time an additional surveillance proposal is introduced, we must answer two basic questions: First, is the new technology or state power going to keep us safe — is there clear evidence that it will work as advertised? And second, what are the costs to our liberty, our privacy and our pocketbooks? When we drill down into these questions regarding the surveillance cameras, we find that they do not work as advertised, but pose grave threats to our civil liberties.

Camera proponents often say they help keep us safe from violence and crime, but comprehensive studies suggest that the truth is more complex. One British Home Office study showed that cameras have no significant impact on crime rates, and a more recent British inquiry indicated that violent crime actually increased after cameras were installed. The authors cautioned: “The belief that [this type of computerized camera system] alone can counter complex social problems is unrealistic in the extreme.”

Cameras don’t stop terrorist attacks like the one at the Boston Marathon. There were many cameras all along the marathon route, and they did not deter the bombers. Nor did the tens of thousands of surveillance cameras in London stop the 2005 train bombing there. This list goes on and on. While permanently installed cameras may, very infrequently, actually make the difference in enabling the apprehension of a suspect, it’s hard to argue that we are not monitored enough as it is. After all, the police were able to identify the marathon suspects using the available private camera footage.

Another upcoming proposal is to extend the time period that footage is retained. The DHS cameras can already be connected live to a regional central camera command station that can integrate other monitoring systems. Is our distinctly limited local oversight sufficient to determine whether camera usage is going too far? Furthermore, once cameras are installed, other capabilities can be added, such as face recognition, behavior analysis or automatic tracking (such as through cell phones).

The newest technological products are routinely pushed upon local municipalities nowadays by the Department of Homeland Security or other governmental agencies. (In fact, these agencies usually pay the bill, circumventing Town Meeting’s normal budgetary prioritization process.)

The dozen stationary public surveillance cameras at Brookline traffic intersections were followed quickly by automatic license plate readers, and Town Meeting members just learned that live monitoring cameras that also record are now in operation at some public school entrances, with more to come. The police have long owned similar mobile cameras, nominally for use in emergency situations and criminal investigations, but which mostly sit in places like Coolidge Corner. At the same time, the T has been rolling out cameras at stations and on its vehicles. Elsewhere, drones are already employed by several large municipal police departments.

While cameras don’t necessarily do anything to deter criminals from hurting people, they do have a chilling effect on everyone in our society. Numerous studies have shown that people change their behavior when they know they are being watched. Do we want to live in a world in which every move we make in public is monitored by the government, available for viewing in a central location? Do we want to be tracked from the moment we leave our homes in the morning until the moment we return at night, although the trackers have no reason to suspect we’ve done anything wrong?

In the interest of maintaining what’s left of our vibrant, open society, Brookline should reject calls for more surveillance. Boston Strong means holding on to our hard-won rights and values.

Kade Crockford is director of the Technology for Liberty Program of the ACLU of Massachusetts. Frank Farlow is co-chair of Brookline PAX.

About Us

Sign up

for daily e-mail

Site Services

Market Place

Community Info

Community Blogs

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
Brookline TAB ~ 254 Second Ave., Needham, Massachusetts 02494 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service